LORDS OF APATHY

July 31, 2009

Although not as popular as 'Tube Top Tuesdays', 'Hot Asian Girl DuJour', Clips from 'The Room' or pictures of babies covered in money; I think it's important to recognize some political game every now and then, -especially regarding the healthcare debate going on in congress right now. I was gonna post my own rant on this yesterday, but I think my new boy Ant Weins sums it up best here:

10 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Please can you explain why Obama refuses to tax existing employer-sponsored healthcare benefits in order to pay for ObamaCare? I believe this was proposed by Jason Furman (among others) during the campaign.

Can someone explain to me why they won't cap crazy awards in malpractice cases? If one reason for healthcare reform is to control costs, tort reform is a significant way to do it. Hmm, what could it be? Oh yeah, trial lawyers give a zillion dollars to politicians, so that will never happen. While the sentiment behind this healthcare reform push is cool, the logistics of hooking it up are idiotic.

Awesome. A true spokesman for the people who desperately need comprehensive, single payer health care. Unlike the Rethugs who just wave a 40 year old tattered flag of Socialism which is just code for "screw the people and only help the special interests"...

Anonymous 1: I think he doesn't want to tax existing employer-sponsored healthcare benefits because it would put even more pressure on small businesses who are already struggling with the aftermath of Bush's regulation-free economy. It would also encourage more businesses to drop healthcare plans for employees, making it unfair for those who were content with their existing healthcare plans provided by their employer.

Anonymous 2: That seems like a dishonest question to ask, considering there's not cap on ANYTHING as it relates to unfettered corporate greed. Why not caps on bonuses given away to the bankers and insurance companies who are responsible for creating this recession in the first place? In other words, the Milton Friedman 'Capitalism at all costs/ greed is good' model is fine, ONLY if it is benefitting the people at the very top of the financial food chain? Funny how these people always site the random frivolous lawsuit, rather that the institutionalized system that rewards their own dishonesty and greedy excess.

Anon 1 here. Thank you for your reply. I would argue that taxing those benefits will not affect small business owners, because I think what would happen is that employers would lower their employees' salary/overall compensation by the amount of the tax.

Your second point is interesting. I will try to come back to you on that.

Anyway, I appreciate the civilised discussion, which is not always easy to find online.

@ Anon 2: rather than cap malpractice awards (which one could argue keep the profession honest), why not make it illegal for any entity other than an individual to donate to a political party?

Spoke to a Democratic staffer on Sun. who made the same point you did about the govt not wanting to penalise business owners by taxing existing healthcare benefits. I still think that would fall on the employee, given the state of the labour market.

Re: "It would also encourage more businesses to drop healthcare plans for employees" --- there is some concern that because the govt is going to be setting (uniform) standards for all private health insurance, that will eventually just push most companies into abandoning their insurance and push employees into the govt pool.